[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm] sys_semctl gcc 4.1 warning fix
    On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 03:31:29PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
    > From: Al Viro <>
    > Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 23:10:24 +0100
    > > But that's the argument in favour of using diff, not shutting the
    > > bogus warnings up...
    > IMHO, the tree should build with -Werror without exception.
    > Once you have that basis, new ones will not show up easily
    > and the hard part of the battle has been won.
    > Yes, people will post a lot of bogus versions of warning fixes, but
    > we're already good at flaming those off already :-)

    Alternatively, gcc could get saner. Seriously, some very common patterns
    trigger that shit - e.g. function that returns error or 0 and stores
    value to *pointer_argument in case of success. It's a clear regression
    in 4.x and IMO should be treated as gcc bug.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-05-11 00:48    [W:0.018 / U:128.392 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site